Relates to designating blighted property and blighted areas; provides definition of blighted property and blighted areas; amends definition of substandard or insanitary area

Summary of provisions

Section 1 amends Section 103 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law ("EDPL") to add a definition of "blighted property" and "blighted area" to conform with the newly added Section 204-a, found in Section 3 of this bill.

Section 2 amends subdivision B of Section 204 of the EDPL to add a clos- ing paragraph requiring a condemnor to include findings that satisfy the definition of "blighted property or blighted area" if the condemnor is exercising eminent domain to remedy blight.

Section 3 amends the EDPL to add a new section 204-a with an objective definition of blighted property and blighted areas. A property or group of properties would be found to be blighted only if they met certain detailed criteria. Further, certain properties are listed as exempt from a blight determination. Also, in order for an area to be found to be blighted, a majority of the individual properties would have to be found to be blighted, and these properties would have to represent a geograph- ical majority of the redevelopment area. A condemnor must make written findings on the conditions that constitute blight. Finally, a declara- tion of blight would be valid for up to fifteen years.

Section 4 amends Section 206 of the EDPL to require the use of the factors found in subdivision B of Section 204 of the EDPL in situations where the condemnor is exempt from the EDPL procedure.

Section 5 amends Section (1)(3) of the Urban Development Corporation Act ("UDCA") by adding a new subdivision to incorporate the definition of "blighted property" and "blighted area" established in EDPL Section 204-a.

Section 6 amends Section (3)(12) of the UDCA to remove the terms "slum" and "deteriorated or deteriorating" from the definition of "substandard or insanitary area."

Section 7 amends Section (1)(2) of the UDCA to remove the terms "slum" and "deteriorated or deteriorating" from the legislative findings.

Section 8 amends subdivision 6(d) of Section (1)(16-n) to remove the term "deteriorated" from the types of properties subject to a municipal inventory and assessment for in kind contributions.

Section 9 amends Section 501 of the General Municipal Law ("GML") to remove the terms "slum" and "deteriorated or deteriorating" from the policy and purposes.

Section 10 amends subdivision 4 of Section 502 of the GML to remove the terms "slum" and "deteriorated or deteriorating" from the definition of "substandard or insanitary area.

Section 11 amends subdivision 5 of Section 510 of the GML to remove "slum areas" and "deteriorated or deteriorating" from the types of prop- erties that can be acquired through community renewal programs, so that blight is the sole standard.

Section 12 amends Section 520 of the GML to remove "slum" and "deteri- orated or deteriorating" from the types of properties subject to urban renewal projects.

Section 13 amends Section (1)(2) of the Urban Development and Research Corporation Act ("UDRCA") to remove "deterioration" from the statement of legislative findings.

Section 14 provides that the act will take effect immediately.

Justification

That "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation" is a right guaranteed by the New York Consti- tution. The words "public use" are meant to protect property owners from the State's power to transfer property from one private property owner to another. Over the last decade, courts have considered the question of whether economic development constitutes a "public use." In the most notable of these cases, Kelo v City of New London, the Supreme Court allowed for the forcible transfer of property from one private owner to another in support of economic development. This decision has prompted legislative reform in forty-three states and it is time for New York to follow suit.

In a decision by the New York Court of Appeals addressing the use of eminent domain in the context of economic development, Chief Judge Lipp- man stated that "it may be that the bar has now been set too low that what will now pass as 'blight,' as that expression has been come to be understood and used by political appointees to public corporations rely- ing upon studies paid for by developers, should not be permitted to constitute a predicate for the invasion of property rights and the razing of homes and businesses. But any such limitation upon the sover- eign power of eminent domain as it has come to be defined in the urban renewal context is a matter for the Legislature, not the courts." Matter

of Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev., (2009 NY Slip op 08677) (emphasis added). This bill is in response to Chief Judge Lippman's invitation to further define blight

This bill provides objective, quantifiable standards by which to deter- mine whether a property or area is indeed blighted. It will ensure that condemnors under the Urban Development Corporation Act, General Munici- pal Law, Urban Development and Research Corporation Act, and the Eminent Domain Procedure Law use consistent and predictable factors related to the public's health and safety to evaluate the blight status of a neigh- borhood. The bill requires that a majority of the properties within the redevelopment area be considered blighted and that these properties cover a majority of the geographical area of the project.

Eminent domain can be a useful and even necessary tool for urban rede- velopment, particularly for older built-out cities like those in New York State. Its application, however, must balance the rights of proper- ty owners with the need for economic development. This bill provides much needed standards to be used when such rights are balanced against the need for development.

Fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

Immediately.